Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby gambelda » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:13 am

I do not have my Logical Reasoning book with me and am working on a client site. I was wondering how people attack questions that state:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

I took 1 section of a LR practice test today and forced myself to slowly examine each question and validate why certain answers were right and certain answers were wrong. I still missed 3 which is frustrating, but it allowed me to push myself to make those validations and confirm that these principle questions are a true weakness.

I'm in September 2006 - section 2. Specific question is #12. I chose (E) instead of (A) because I believed the stimulus to illustrate that if you do not know another persons intentions, then you must know their consequences in order to evaluate the morality of a person's actions. The more I read the answer I chose now, the less it makes sense and I see why it is wrong.

Answer (E) is wrong because knowing the consequences of one's actions is not required in order to evaluate the moralty of those actions. They could know the persons intentions of an action and never know the consequences and still evaluate the morality of those actions. Furthermore, knowing only consequences does not allow you to evaluate morality per the stimulus implication that knowing a person's intentions is a requirement to evaluating morality.

My question to the TL readers is how best to address these types of questions? What triggers stand out to you? Is the main goal to simply find the AC that most outlines what has occured or the MC of the argument presented?

User avatar
longdaysjourney
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby longdaysjourney » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:53 am

I usually attack like this:

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
annie2010
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby annie2010 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:07 am

I just treat them the same as strengthen questions (which of the following if true would most help strengthen the argument above, or something like that).
The correct answer choice will be a principle that strengthens what ever the conclusion is above.
such as:

Stimulus: This painting we have on our wall is ugly, so we should throw it out.

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

Principle that would strengthen this: Owners of objects that are aesthetically unpleasing have the right to dispose of them.

User avatar
longdaysjourney
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby longdaysjourney » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:22 am

annie2010 wrote:I just treat them the same as strengthen questions (which of the following if true would most help strengthen the argument above, or something like that).
The correct answer choice will be a principle that strengthens what ever the conclusion is above.
such as:

Stimulus: This painting we have on our wall is ugly, so we should throw it out.

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

Principle that would strengthen this: Owners of objects that are aesthetically unpleasing have the right to dispose of them.


ehhhh........


That's what the lsat wants you to think...Image.

This is why the aforementioned is erroneous. Say it goes thus...

Abner has four persimmons, because he doesn't have two persimmons.

Which principle justifies:
(a) persimmons exist
(b) Most everyone has four persimmons
(c) Humans have either four or two persimmons

(a) & (b) both strengthen the argument...to greater or lesser degrees (i could have probably created more convincing answer choices, but just roll with it...). But "which principle justifies" means "which principle make the logic of the propositions 100%, beyond a doubt, absolutely and completely true...it doesn't mean..."which kinda strengthens the argument", "which strengthens the argument", or "which really really really strengthens the argument."

So, although you correct answer will, necessarily, strengthen...that is not what you are looking for. You are looking for the answer that proves it 100% correct.

Any advice beyond this would be fruitless...you have to do some soul searching and serious analysis of you incorrect choices in order to identify why it is that you miss these. Get a piece of paper and draw a line through the middle...at the top write, "principle justify." For every one of these that you get correct, write what you did right on the left side. For every one of these you get wrong, write what you did wrong on the right side. After ten or twenty you will see a pattern or you wont...either outcome will tell you what you need to know. If pattern: this is the weakness I need to eliminate; If no-pattern: there's something fundamental I'm misunderstanding.

User avatar
annie2010
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby annie2010 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:56 am

I dont think that the principles always make it 100% logically valid...BUT you definitely could be right. I didn't come up with that strategy, it's just what I learned in my prep class (of a respectable company) and looking at it that was basically made those questions instantaneously easy. So I think it's worth a shot to consider it.

User avatar
longdaysjourney
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby longdaysjourney » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:23 am

annie2010 wrote:I dont think that the principles always make it 100% logically valid...BUT you definitely could be right. I didn't come up with that strategy, it's just what I learned in my prep class (of a respectable company) and looking at it that was basically made those questions instantaneously easy. So I think it's worth a shot to consider it.


ahhhhhhhh!!! you're right... the OP's thread title is a damn misnomer.

Your advice was for "principle that most justifies" and mine was for "principle that justifies."

I guess you could say that the action of recognizing this:
longdaysjourney wrote:That's what the lsat wants you to think...Image
is itself a trap Image.

But if recognizing that the trap is itself a trap, this doesn't that mean that..????
Image
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby gambelda » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:28 am

This last post by you most adequately summarizes the main point of the LSAT..... and also how my brain reacts when I realize this fact.

So would you say that in these types of justify questions I should look for one that applies a rule/principle that makes the scenario possible? I tend to eliminate 3 answer choices in these types of questions and then inevitably choose the wrong one. Any suggestion on how to approach two very similar answers?

User avatar
longdaysjourney
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby longdaysjourney » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:35 am

gambelda wrote:This last post by you most adequately summarizes the main point of the LSAT..... and also how my brain reacts when I realize this fact.

So would you say that in these types of justify questions I should look for one that applies a rule/principle that makes the scenario possible? I tend to eliminate 3 answer choices in these types of questions and then inevitably choose the wrong one. Any suggestion on how to approach two very similar answers?


Yes...and this will sound trivial, but it's key. If you're down to two answers don't compare the answers to each other, compare them to the question. Only one can be right, so if they both seem right you're probably not misunderstanding the answers (although that's possible), you're probably misunderstanding some facet of the question itself. So, once you have reduced the argument to something akin to "If X, then Y", compare your answer choices to that argument...not to each other. At first, when I had it narrowed down to two I'd read the first option, then the second option, then the first again, then the second again, then the first & then the second....over and over...that get's you nowhere.

gambelda
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby gambelda » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:43 am

longdaysjourney wrote:
gambelda wrote:This last post by you most adequately summarizes the main point of the LSAT..... and also how my brain reacts when I realize this fact.

So would you say that in these types of justify questions I should look for one that applies a rule/principle that makes the scenario possible? I tend to eliminate 3 answer choices in these types of questions and then inevitably choose the wrong one. Any suggestion on how to approach two very similar answers?


Yes...and this will sound trivial, but it's key. If you're down to two answers don't compare the answers to each other, compare them to the question. Only one can be right, so if they both seem right you're probably not misunderstanding the answers (although that's possible), you're probably misunderstanding some facet of the question itself. So, once you have reduced the argument to something akin to "If X, then Y", compare your answer choices to that argument...not to each other. At first, when I had it narrowed down to two I'd read the first option, then the second option, then the first again, then the second again, then the first & then the second....over and over...that get's you nowhere.


Good advice. Because that's exactly what I do and I think I end up just feeling like a 4 year old trying to teach myself calculus by about the 3rd time reading each alternative AC

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Attacking "Principle's that Justify" questions. S2006 LR1#12

Postby AverageTutoring » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:14 pm

longdaysjourney wrote:
gambelda wrote:This last post by you most adequately summarizes the main point of the LSAT..... and also how my brain reacts when I realize this fact.

So would you say that in these types of justify questions I should look for one that applies a rule/principle that makes the scenario possible? I tend to eliminate 3 answer choices in these types of questions and then inevitably choose the wrong one. Any suggestion on how to approach two very similar answers?


Yes...and this will sound trivial, but it's key. If you're down to two answers don't compare the answers to each other, compare them to the question. Only one can be right, so if they both seem right you're probably not misunderstanding the answers (although that's possible), you're probably misunderstanding some facet of the question itself. So, once you have reduced the argument to something akin to "If X, then Y", compare your answer choices to that argument...not to each other. At first, when I had it narrowed down to two I'd read the first option, then the second option, then the first again, then the second again, then the first & then the second....over and over...that get's you nowhere.


I would say yes and no to this. Some times you miss a key phrase in the answer choice, such as "most" or "many" which would automatically eliminate that answer choice if the question was talking about absolutes (for the most part..). What I do is re-read the answer choices twice and see what the real difference is between them, then compare that to the stimulus. Some how, the credited response always seems to jump out.

Now...for questions where you cross all 5 out...hehe those are great.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest